JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 10.11.2004 (Annexure- 14) passed by Respondent No. 4 on the recommendation of the Central Selection Committee dated 16.10.2004. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to grant him promotion on the post of Reader S.I., with effect from 01.10.1996, i.e. the date from which his juniors were promoted. 3. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:- (I) The petitioner was initially appointed as Steno ASI in the year 1986 and posted in the confidential section of the Commandant JAP- 4. After continued service in the aforesaid place till 12.12.2001, he was transferred to JAP- 5, Deoghar. (ii) When the cases of the officers for their promotion were taken up by Departmental Promotion committee the petitioner's case was also considered and on being satisfied that the petitioner was eligible for promotion, his name was entered in the promotion list prepared on 16.03.2002. By the corresponding notification, dated 16.03.2002 (Annexure- 1), he was granted promotion to the post of ASI, but with effect from the date of Notification. (iii) Being dissatisfied on the ground that he was entitled for promotion with retrospective date from 1996, the petitioner had submitted his representation before the concerned authorities, but when the same was not conceded, he filed a writ application before this Court, vide W.P. (S) No. 6136 of 2003. (iv) The writ application was disposed of by this Court with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Director General of Police, Jharkhand and with a corresponding direction to the D.G.P. to consider the petitioner's claim and pass a reasoned order. (v) The petitioner, thereafter, filed his representation and upon considering the same, the impugned order (Annexure- 14), was passed, declaring therein that the petitioner was not entitled to promotion, in view of the fact that a departmental proceeding was initiated against him on the basis of a complaint received on 06.12.2001, and in the departmental proceeding he was awarded punishment, and therefore, the petitioner, according to Rule, has to wait for a period of three years before gaining eligibility for promotion. On the aforesaid ground, the promotion which was earlier granted to the petitioner by a notification dated 16.03.2002, was not given effect to and the petitioner continued to remain in the original post of ASI. 4. Dr. S.N. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grounds stated in the impugned order are totally incorrect, misconceived and not in consonance with the records. Learned counsel asserts emphatically that on the date when the petitioner was earlier granted promotion, i.e. on 16.03.2002, there was no departmental proceeding pending nor was any punishment inflicted upon the petitioner. Referring to Annexure- 6 and Annexure- 7, which are the letters issued by the Commandant and the Inspector General of Police respectively, learned counsel explains that in both the aforesaid letters, the concerned officers have categorically declared that on the date when the petitioner's promotion was notified, there was neither any departmental proceeding pending against him nor was any punishment inflicted. Learned counsel adds further by referring to the provisions of Rule 726 (III) of the Police Manual, which deals with disqualification for admission to the promotion list or retention thereof, that a gap of three years is necessary after the infliction of major punishment before an officer is retained or considered or reconsidered for any promotion list. Learned counsel explains that since the petitioner did not suffer from any such disqualification on the date he was granted promotion, the respondents cannot refuse promotion to the petitioner and neither can they refuse his claim of promotion from the date when his juniors were granted promotion. 5. In the counter affidavit as also in the supplementary counter affidavit, the respondents have sought to explain that on 06.12.2001, a complaint was received against the petitioner. The complaint was subjected to preliminary inquiry and after finding a prima facie case, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on 25.02.2002 and on the conclusion of the departmental proceeding, punishment was imposed against him by entering therein One Black Mark in his service records. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents would want to explain that as per the Police Manual Order No. 99, incases of major punishment, the period of punishment counted from the date of occurrence and not from the date of awarding punishment. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents would want to explain that as per the Police Manual Order No. 99, incases of major punishment, the period of punishment counted from the date of occurrence and not from the date of awarding punishment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the date of occurrence, according to the complaint received against the petitioner, was 06.12.2001 and this amply demonstrates that on the date when the notification regarding the petitioner's promotion was issued, a complaint was already pending against him on which a preliminary inquiry was conducted. 7. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I find that admittedly, the petitioner's promotion to the post of ASI was notified on 16.03.2002 with effect from 17.01.2002. On the date of such notification, there was no departmental proceeding pending against the petitioner and neither was he under the burden of any punishment. 8. Rule 726 (III) of the Police Manual, which relates to the disqualification for admission in the promotion list or retention in the promotion list, lays down that a gap of three years is necessary after the infliction of major punishment before an officer is retained or considered or reconsidered for any promotion list. It is amply clear from the aforesaid provision that the period has to be counted from the date of punishment and not from the date of alleged occurrence. Furthermore, it is well settled that a proceeding is deemed to have commenced only on the date when the charge is framed against the delinquent employee and not prior to the date of framing of charge. 9. From the facts and circumstances as it appears, the petitioner did not suffer from any disqualification on the date when his promotion was notified making the same effective from 17.01.2001. Thus, promotion which was already granted to him, could not possibly have been recalled or withheld. 10. As regards the petitioner's contention that he ought to have been given promotion with effect from the year1996 when persons junior to him were given such promotions, it would be for the respondents to consider the same. The counter affidavit deals to a greater extent only in respect of the promotion which has already been granted to him and subsequently withheld, and the reasons for withholding. The counter affidavit deals to a greater extent only in respect of the promotion which has already been granted to him and subsequently withheld, and the reasons for withholding. As it appears, the concerned authorities of the respondents have now considered the petitioner's case for his promotion on 13.01.2006 and he has been found fit for his promotion. 11. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 10.11.2004 (Annexure- 14) is here by quashed. The respondents shall allow the petitioner, benefits of the promotion which was notified on 16.03.2002 from the date when such promotion has declared effective. 12. If the petitioner has any further grievance regarding the date from which his promotion should be made effective, he may file representation to the concerned authorities of the respondents, who in turn, shall within two months from the date of receipt of such representation, consider the same and take appropriate decision on the same, by recording a reasoned and speaking order and shall effectively communicate such decision to the petitioner. With these observations, this writ application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the respondents.